Feb. 18th Board meeting agenda includes layoffs for 104 teachers, counselors, directors, vice principals and 193 classified staff to save $38 million
By Allen D. Payton
According to Danielle Watson, a parent of a child in the Antioch Unified School District, “as of Friday, Feb. 13, the District is allegedly pink-slipping Admin staff and plans to eliminate over 100+ teachers. They are also discussing proposed cuts to Special Education staffing, including classroom aides and support staff.”
As a result, a “Peaceful Protest is planned for Tuesday morning, Feb. 17 at the school district headquarters.
“Nearly one in five AUSD students has an IEP (Individual Education Plan). Parents are asking the Board to re-evaluate cuts and share a public impact analysis prior to finalizing any decisions at the Feb. 18 Board meeting,” she shared. “They are no longer negotiating with Special Education staff.”
Proposed Cuts on Board Meeting Agenda
The Board’s agenda for Wednesday night’s meeting confirms Watson’s concerns showing a total of 297 staff cuts to save almost $38 million in the annual budget.
The cuts are proposed by Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams and Associate Superintendent for Human Resources Dr. Camille Johnson. According to the staff report for the items, “In the event classified – and certificated – services need to be reduced or discontinued due to lack of work and/or lack of funds, the Education Code requires that the Board take action to reduce/eliminate positions and that affected employees be provided written notice no later than March 15. The District will consider bumping rights, retirements, resignations, releases, and other attrition and give notice only to those employees who, according to seniority and Board-adopted tiebreak and competency criteria, are appropriate for layoff.”
“I would like for Dr. Williams to break this barrier of distrust among parents, staff and the broad community,” Watson stated. “This is her opportunity.”
Her greatest concern is about the cuts to special education teachers and para-professionals, and the safety of the students, especially those who have already demonstrated behavioral challenges.
“It’s concerning to think about the risk to teachers they’ll be causing, by forcing them to mitigate situations by themselves,” Watson said.
Several parents have sent emails to the Board and Superintendent. But as of today, Monday, February 16th, no response has been received from anyone, she shared.
The protest begins at 10 A.M. at the AUSD offices, 510 G Street, in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown.
“Califraudia” estimated at $250 billion of fraud, waste and abuse
By Jenny Rae Le Roux
SACRAMENTO, CA — Today, CAL DOGE, the unofficial California Department of Government Efficiency, launched on Jan. 26th by candidates for governor, Steve Hilton and for state controller, Herb Morgan, announced it has untangled a web of funding from the Prop 64 (state marijuana legalization law) authorized California Cannabis Tax Fund (CCTF) – supposed to be used for substance abuse prevention – that instead is building the Democrat political machine in California.
An investigation into Elevate Youth California, which is one of the financial intermediaries that received $370M from the CCTF, found that Elevate Youth distributed 517 micro-grants, with an average grant size of $700K, to multiple organizations that do nothing related to substance abuse and instead build the Democrat voter base. These organizations explicitly fund “social justice youth development”, “civic engagement”, and “power building.”
According to Prop 64 and the supposed oversight group for Elevate Youth, The Center at Sierra Health Foundation, the tax is designated to support “funding and technical assistance for organizations that are developing or increasing community substance use disorder prevention, outreach and education focused on youth.” Instead, Elevate Youth is distributing funds to organizations – such as $1M for “civic engagement” to Young Invincibles, which has stated values of “Young Adult Power, Equity, Community, Collaboration, and Bold Ideas” but says and does nothing related to substance abuse prevention.
“After collecting $1 billion annually from the Cannabis Tax, that money should be spent on substance abuse prevention as stated in the law, not political organizing to keep Democrats in charge of California’s decline,” said Jenny Rae Le Roux, Director of CAL DOGE. “Funneling money through financial intermediaries to hundreds of non-profits that spend those funds on partisan Democrat political organizing must stop, and the age of accountability must begin.”
Other grantee organizations, such as the Jakara Movement Grant, which was provided $1M for Sikh youth empowerment and voter registration, and Asian Refugees United, which was granted $800K for LGBTQ+ Asian Storytelling, have no connection to substance abuse prevention.
Estimates $250 Billion of Fraud, Waste and Abuse
Based on a preliminary review by Hilton, and his running mate Morgan, entitled “Califraudia”, California’s exposure to fraud, waste, and abuse across major state programs is estimated at $250 billion. This estimate, based on independent analysis, underscores the urgent need for formal audits, investigations, and enforcement as a matter of basic fiscal responsibility.
Hilton added, “In seven days of work, CAL DOGE has already uncovered more fraud than Gavin Newsom and his regime have done in their seven years in power. And we’re not even elected yet! This is exactly why I set up CAL DOGE in the first place, to expose fraud and corruption in the system so we can act to stop it on day one. Democrats and their shadow network of leftist front organizations are stealing taxpayers’ money for their own partisan ends. We pay the highest taxes in the country yet get the worst results – and now we are finding out why, and where our money is really going. There is much more to come from CAL DOGE and its work will play a huge part in ending 16 years of Democrat one party rule this November.”
Following are additional details on the investigation and the team that connected the dots:
Californians Voted For the $370 Million in Cannabis Tax Dollars to Fund “Drug Prevention.” Instead, the Tax Bankrolls Leftwing Political Activism.
When California voters approved Proposition 64 in 2016, they were told cannabis tax revenue would fund youth substance abuse prevention. Six years and $370.25 million later, Rhetor’s AI-powered forensic audit — conducted in partnership with CalDOGE — reveals where that money actually went: into a sprawling network of 517 grants funding political organizing, voter registration drives and “social justice youth development,” all administered by a single nonprofit intermediary operating as a shadow agency of the state.
How the Money Moves
The California Department of Health Care Services does not distribute Proposition 64 cannabis tax funds directly to community organizations. Instead, they issue a master contract to The Center at Sierra Health Foundation, a 501(c)(3) that has become the de facto bank for the state’s equity, prevention and youth funding.
The Center at Sierra Health Foundation retains 15 to 20 percent in administrative fees then sub-grants the remaining funds to community-based organizations through its own application process.
The state does not pick who gets the grants. The intermediary does, bypassing the rigorous procurement processes mandated for direct government contracts under the Department of General Services and State Controller oversight.
The result is a three-stage pipeline — master contract to fiscal intermediary to sub-grants — that creates layers of separation between taxpayer dollars and their ultimate use.
Lining the Governor’s Pockets
The pipeline starts with the governor’s office, and the relationship between The Center at Sierra Health Foundation and the governor extends well beyond a standard contract. According to the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s Behested Payment Transparency Report (pg.19-20), in 2020 alone, Sierra Health Foundation was the third-largest payor of behested payments statewide at $14,747,724 and the single largest payee of behested payments statewide at $30,869,901 — payments Newsom solicited from private companies.
Newsom himself was the top behesting official in the state that year at $226.8 million total (pg. 20), and Sierra Health Foundation ranked among his top three financial partners in the system.
The financial trajectory of The Center at Sierra Health Foundation tracks accordingly. IRS Form 990 filings show The Center’s revenue exploded from $11.8 million in 2018 to $197 million in 2024 — with 96.5 percent of that revenue coming from government contracts. The Center’s CEO Chet Hewitt’s total compensation rose from $407,726 to $612,730 over the same period, a 50 percent increase that mirrors the growth in state contract volume almost perfectly. Behested payments are legal in California with no dollar limits, but the California Fair Political Practices Commission itself flagged the scale as concerning enough to implement new transparency regulations.
The Grants Say the Quiet Part Out Loud
The pipeline flows from the governor’s office to the The Center at Sierra Health Foundation, the fiscal intermediary, who determines grant recipients. Rather than awarding grants to recipients that qualify for Proposition 64’s original purpose — fighting substance abuse — The Center uses Prop. 64’s taxpayer dollars to fund leftwing activist organizations.
Elevate Youth, for example, the most significant vertical managed by The Center, is funded exclusively by Prop. 64 taxpayer dollars. Yet Elevate Youth’s grant application form explicitly names “social justice youth development” and “civic engagement” as criteria for grantees, terms that appear nowhere in the statutory language of Prop. 64’s Youth Education, Prevention, Early Intervention, and Treatment Account.
Similarly, grant recipients, like United Way of Santa Cruz County, which was awarded $834,075.00 from Elevate Youth, focuses on “activism” and “BILPOC (Black, Indigenous, Latino, and People of Color) and LGBTQ+ youth and families.”
Voters approved cannabis tax revenue for substance abuse prevention. DHCS redefined “prevention” to include political organizing — then buried it inside the grant criteria of a nonprofit intermediary most Californians have never heard of.
Political Activism at Clinical Prices
The math exposes the disconnect.
According to the DHCS YEPEITA report, the Elevate Youth program reached 89,727 participants. Divide $370.25 million by that figure and the cost per participant is $4,126.
Actual clinical substance abuse treatment costs between $2,000 and $5,000 per patient. Elevate Youth California is charging clinical-grade prices for non-clinical projects, including “civic engagement” workshops, leadership development seminars and “community mobilizing” training. These are not treatment programs. They are organizing programs priced like treatment programs.
The Receipts
Elevate Youth’s specific grant awards make the mislabeling undeniable.
Since 2020, the Jakara Movement has received $1.8 million for “Sikh youth empowerment and prevention.” Grant activities include voter registration drives. Under the program’s framework, registering voters is classified as substance abuse prevention.
Pacific Clinics received $1 million for its “Youth IMPACT Project” — designed to “strengthen the leadership skills” of immigrant youth and “mobilize people to achieve change.”
The Center does not hide its ideological aims. They are codified in its program descriptions. The San Joaquin Valley Health Fund lists “power building” and “civic engagement” as core pillars of its health equity strategy. The Center has funded partners to conduct door-to-door canvassing for the Census and voter registration — explicitly linking political capital to health outcomes.
Hidden in a Sea of Grants.
The $370.25 million was not distributed through a handful of large, auditable contracts. It was dispersed across 517 individual grants, averaging $716,150 each.
This fragmentation makes traditional auditing nearly impossible. No single grant is large enough to trigger intensive audit scrutiny. The dispersal prevents consolidated oversight of outcomes. And because The Center — not the state — manages the sub-granting process, no single state auditor has a comprehensive view of where the money lands or what it produces.
How Rhetor Found It
This is the kind of fraud pattern that manual auditors miss by design. When grants are deliberately fragmented across hundreds of recipients, the mislabeling only becomes visible at scale.
Rhetor’s AI analysis — deployed as part of its CAL DOGE partnership — cross-referenced RFA language, grant award descriptions, cost-per-participant calculations and program outcome reporting across the full portfolio of 517 grants. The pattern detection surfaced what no individual audit could: a systematic reclassification of political organizing as public health spending, replicated across hundreds of awards.
What This Means
Californians voted for youth drug prevention. They got a taxpayer-funded political organizing infrastructure — administered by an unelected nonprofit, shielded from procurement oversight and priced at clinical treatment rates for activities that have nothing to do with substance abuse.
The receipts are public. The grant guidelines are public. The cost-per-participant math is public. None of this was hidden. It was just fragmented enough that no one was supposed to connect the dots.
Rhetor and CAL DOGE connected them. The question now is whether Californians will act or wait until Sacramento sends the next $370 million into the same pipeline.
Note: The original figure cited for Elevate Youth’s funding for the Jakara Movement was $350,000. Our updated data found that Elevate Youth has granted $1.8 million to the Jakara Movement since 2020.
The CAL DOGE team includes investigators, tech advisors and citizen journalists. If you have a tip, send it to Califraud.com, a secure whistleblower platform, paid for by the Steve Hilton for Governor 2026 campaign, that allows current and former state employees and members of the public to report fraud, waste, abuse and systemic mismanagement without fear of retaliation.
CAL DOGE, named after Elon Musk’s DOGE which was formed and worked to find wasteful spending, fraud and abuse in the federal government and disbanded last November, is not the same as California DOGE, started in Nov. 2024. The new effort publishes findings, tracks spending at the program level, and advances reform proposals to restore trust, lower costs, and make California government work again for the people who pay for it. For more information about CAL DOGE see https://caldoge.rhetor.ai.
ANTIOCH, CA — The City of Antioch has been awarded a $2,000,000 grant through the California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Grant Program, administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), following approval at the Board’s February 12, 2026 meeting. The funding will support expanded public safety strategies and community-based initiatives focused on prevention, intervention and long-term community stability, including coordinated partnerships and evidence-based services aimed at reducing violence and improving neighborhood safety.
The grant allows the City to initiate program activities beginning April 1, 2026. City staff will work closely with the BSCC to complete the contract process and fulfill all required onboarding and compliance steps associated with the award. Implementation will include structured reporting and performance monitoring to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes.
“This $2 million investment reflects confidence in Antioch’s approach to building safer neighborhoods through collaboration, accountability and data-informed strategies,” said City Manager Bessie Marie Scott. “These funds will allow us to expand programs that address root causes and improve outcomes for our community.”
“This award enhances our ability to deploy focused prevention and intervention strategies that reduce recidivism and improve public safety,” said Chief of Police Joe Vigil. “We will align these resources with evidence-based practices and community partnerships to ensure measurable impact.”
“This grant provides critical support for sustainable, community-centered initiatives,” said Monserrat Cabral, Director of Public Safety and Community Resources. “Our priority will be transparent implementation, performance tracking, and responsible management of these resources to ensure long-term benefits for Antioch residents.”
Additional information regarding program rollout and implementation milestones will be released as the agreement is finalized.
By Contra Costa County Office of Communications & Media
(Martinez, CA) – The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is seeking individuals with sound knowledge and experience in the field of public and private finance, to serve on the Treasury Oversight Committee (Committee) for the seat representing the Alternate County Board of Supervisors, Public Representative Seat 1, and Public Representative Seat 2 for term May 1, 2026 to April 30, 2030.
The Board of Supervisors established the Committee on November 14, 1995. The Committee’s duties include reviewing and monitoring the County Treasurer’s Annual Investment Policy, and ensuring an annual audit is conducted to determine the County Treasurer is in compliance with Government Code §§27130-27137.
To be considered, candidates must be County residents, may not be employed by an entity that has contributed to the reelection campaign of the County Treasurer or a member of the Board of Supervisors in the previous three years, may not directly or indirectly raise money for the County Treasurer or a member of the Board of Supervisors while a member of the Committee and may not work for bond underwriters, bond counsel, security brokerages or dealers, or financial services firms with whom the County Treasurer does business, either during his or her tenure on the Committee or for one year after leaving the Committee. (Government Code §27132.3).
The Committee meets bi-annually in March and September on the third Tuesday of the month at 3:00 p.m. at 625 Court St., Room B010, Martinez, CA 94553. Each meeting lasts approximately one hour.
Application forms can be obtained from the Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board by calling (925) 655-2000 or by clicking on the following link: Submit an Application Online. Applications should be returned to the Clerk of the Board, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, 1st Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 no later than Thursday, March 5, 2026, by 5 p.m. Interviews will be held at the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) meeting, which will be conducted via Zoom at 10:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. on March 23, 2026. More information about the Treasury Oversight Committee can be obtained by visiting the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s website at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/690/Treasury-Oversight-Committee.
To pay for healthcare costs, offsetting cuts in federal budget
If passed, Antioch’s sales tax rate would increase 0.625% to over 10%
By Allen D. Payton
During their regular, weekly meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors decided to tell the taxpayers that they love our money by giving an early Valentine’s Day gift of a 5/8-cent sales tax increase measure on the June ballot. As a general tax, a simple majority of voters will have to give it their support in order to pass. If they do, it will generate an estimated $150 million per year for five years for a total of $750 million, intended to pay for healthcare for county residents impacted by federal budget cuts.
To adopt the sales tax ordinance a 4/5 vote of the Board was required but it passed unanimously. According to the proposed “2026 Retail Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax Ordinance”, all of the proceeds from the tax will be placed in the County’s general fund and used for purposes consistent with general fund expenditures of the County.
Screenshot of Board of Supervisors 5-0 vote on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, to adopt resolution placing sales tax increase on the June 2026 ballot.
Timeline to the Supes Vote
In the staff presentation for the proposed ordinance, the supervisors were provided with the timeline of events that led up to their vote: On November 18, 2025, the County Administrator’s Office offered a presentation on the State Budget and impacts of H.R.1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump which cuts healthcare expenditures. Then, on December 16th, the Health, Employment and Human Services departments provided an in-depth presentation on federal and state financial impacts. That was followed on January 20th by Board direction for seeking legislation allowing for an additional 0.625% general sales tax and development of a related taxing ordinance for a period of five years. Finally, during last Tuesday, February 3rd’s Board Retreat, presentations from Beacon Economics, the County Finance Director, California Welfare Director’s Association (CWDA) and the California Association of Public Hospitals & Health Systems (CAPH) were made to the Board.
Projected Sales Tax Levels by City
If the measure passes, the amount of sales tax collected in each city in the county will increase by 0.625% or 62.5 cents for each $100 spent on taxable items. The presentation shows the sales tax increase would cause 15 of the 19 cities in the county to be above the local sales tax cap, including the tax cap changes from SB1349. That law, passed in 2020, allowed Contra Costa County to impose a sales tax of up to 0.5% for transportation projects, which is exempt from the state’s 2% cap. According to an April 2025 Issue Brief on Sales and Use Tax by the California State Association of Counties, “Today, the statewide sales tax rate on eligible taxable goods is 7.25%.”
Some components of the state rate go to various local revenue funds.”
In addition, “Cities may impose a rate of up to one percent (1%).”
In California, the local sales tax cap is generally set at 3.5% above the 6% state sales tax rate for a total of 9.5%.
Following is the list of the new sales tax amounts by city if the county measure passes:
Source: Contra Costa County
The cities with the highest current sales tax rates in the state are Alameda and Albany at 10.75%. With the proposed Contra Costa sales tax increase, El Cerrito and Pinole would have the highest sales tax rate in both the county and state at 10.875%. Antioch would have the second highest in the county at 10.375%. That does not include other sales taxes that may be passed in 2026 including the regional transit tax slated for the November 2026 ballot, which would be an additional 0.5% Countywide. (See related article)
Gioia Offers Comments on Facebook, in TV Interview
In a post by John Gioia on his Facebook page, today, Feb. 11th, he shared a video of his comments during a KTVU FOX2 interview “about why a unanimous bi-partisan Board of Supervisors is placing a 5/8 cent temporary 5-year sales tax on this June’s ballot to protect our county’s hard working families from Trump’s devastating health, human services and food assistance cuts.”
“The average Contra Costan would pay about $10 per month to prevent over 50,000 people from losing healthcare and crowding emergency rooms that we all use and protecting emergency response times,” he added.
Resolution Details
The Resolution adopted by the Board includes the following clauses, “On July 4, 2025, the President signed H.R. 1, which enacted the deepest cuts in our country’s history to Medicaid and the federal food assistance programs;
“Medicaid and Medicare are the largest sources of revenue for the County’s public health and hospital/clinic system, which provide lifesaving and essential care to county residents, including Medi-Cal beneficiaries, Medicare recipients, and uninsured residents.
“H.R. 1 immediately freezes supplemental Medicaid funding and blocks the County from drawing down expected supplemental payments, producing escalating negative impacts on the County’s budget, while simultaneously making significant eligibility changes which will cause thousands of county residents to lose health coverage;
“Lack of health coverage often causes people to delay medical care resulting in sicker residents and will increase demand for emergency care sought by residents no longer able to access preventative healthcare after losing insurance coverage;
“More than 335,000 County residents rely on Medi-Cal for their health care, and the County is the primary health-care provider for this population;
“H.R. 1 also makes substantial reductions to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), limiting food assistance relied upon by approximately 110,000 county residents;
“As a result of the federal funding cuts and rising costs, the County projects annual revenue losses exceeding $300 million by 2029;
“The combination of decreased federal funding with the increased demands on the County’s healthcare and social services threatens ALL County services, from public safety to homeless services;
“An additional five-eighths of one cent countywide general transaction and use tax (sales tax) would generate an estimated $150 million annually for five years…”
Adopted Proposed Ballot Measure Language
The resolution also includes the proposed ballot measure language pending approval by the County Clerk’s Office:
“To help Contra Costa County address deep cuts in federal funding; support critical local services such as health care, supplemental food assistance, and other general county services; and reduce the risk of closures at Contra Costa’s regional hospital and health clinics, shall Contra Costa County adopt a five-eighths of one cent general sales tax for 5 years, providing an estimated $150,000,000 annually, not available to the federal government and subject to annual audits and independent citizens oversight?”
The primary election will be held Tuesday, June 2, 2026.
“They should go back to the drawing board and give us a cost savings plan that demands more sacrifice from BART management, senior staff, and retirees.”
By Marc Joffe
BART has published a plan to balance its budget in the event voters reject the half-cent additional transit sales tax slated for the November 2026 ballot. BART’s plan appears to be well thought out but imposes far more inconvenience on riders than is necessary to close an expected $376 million deficit.
The most visible change is the station closures. Under its more extreme Phase 2 plan, BART would close 15 stations systemwide, including these five in Contra Costa: Orinda, North Concord, Pittsburg Bay Point, Pittsburg Center, and Antioch. Oakland Airport station would close, but SFO would stay open. Five other stations in Alameda County south of Oakland would be shuttered, as would four stations in San Mateo County south of Daly City. (See related article)
But most of these stations should not close. As BART itself recognizes, the savings from shuttering stations are not that large. And there is an alternative that would achieve a large portion of the expected savings, which is to operate the stations on an unstaffed basis. This idea may seem strange to BART riders expecting to see a station agent, but the fact is that many train stations in California operate without staff, including several on Capitol Corridor and Caltrain. Even Pittsburg Center on e-BART often operates without staff.
That said, both Pittsburg Center and North Concord have very low utilization (less than 1000 riders on an average weekday) and are reasonable candidates for closure. Indeed, BART should demolish the North Concord station and sell the parking lot to a developer for conversion to single family housing, a use consistent with the adjoining neighborhood.
Pittsburg Center, being in the median of Highway 4, does not offer a similar redevelopment option. It is one of three stations on the eBART extension connecting Antioch, Pittsburg and Bay Point using standard-gauge diesel multiple-unit trains which are incompatible with the rest of BART. The BART retrenchment plan envisions closing the whole eBART extension. A better choice would be to find a private operator to take it over.
That operator should be given discretion over fares and the option to convert the line to driverless technology in hopes of achieving a profit or at least minimizing the need for taxpayer subsidies.
As anyone who has visited an airport in the last few decades knows, driverless trains are nothing new. Outside the Bay Area, they are used for non-airport systems such as Honolulu’s Skyline and Vancouver’s Skytrain. Paris, Singapore, and other cities have successfully converted some of their lines to autonomous operation and Washington DC’s Metro is looking into doing the same thing.
Over the longer term, the entire BART system should be driverless: it could achieve large operational cost savings while maintaining or even increasing service frequency. Yet BART is not giving serious consideration to transitioning to driverless trains. When BART Director Matt Rinn spoke to CoCoTax in November I asked him about the idea and saw that he was unfamiliar with it. Staff should be discussing this option with the governing board.
They don’t do so because BART operates primarily for the benefit of staff and the labor unions that collect a portion of their salaries via dues. Riders are second, and taxpayers are a distant third.
Contra Costa taxpayers already pay plenty for transit, and, this November, it is time for us to tell BART and other agencies “no more.” They should go back to the drawing board and give us a cost savings plan that demands more sacrifice from BART management, senior staff, and retirees.
One change that should be considered is a 10% salary reduction for all BART employees receiving over $100,000 per year. Based on my analysis of 2024 wage and overtime data, this option would save $54 million. Costly overtime hours should also be limited: in 2024 alone five BART employees collected over $200,000 in overtime a piece.
BART’s plan defers advanced payments for retiree health benefits. This saves $38 million, but only by pushing the cost onto future taxpayers when the fund holding the advance retiree health funding is exhausted. Instead, the BART retiree health benefit should be eliminated just as it was for Stockton employees when that city went bankrupt in 2012. With BART facing functional bankruptcy in 2026, a similar economy is needed. Retirees can get subsidized healthcare through Covered California or Medicare just as those of us who work in the private sector usually do.
Salary and benefit cuts in addition to the layoffs BART already has planned may seem harsh, but these are the types of reductions companies have to make when they are losing money and there is less demand for their product. Because BART now needs more of our money, we have the power to veto any cost-saving plan that fails to prioritize the needs of beleaguered taxpayers and riders. Let’s exercise that veto. In November, say NO to the transit sales tax.
Marc Joffe is the President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
If new funding not identified such as if Nov. 2026 ballot measure sales tax increase doesn’t pass
East Contra Costa, North Concord, Orinda Stations could be shuttered
By BART
At the annual BART Board Workshop on Thursday, February 12, BART staff will present Directors with detailed plans for an alternative service framework if a November 2026 ballot measure fails and no other operating revenue source is identified. 10 stations could be closed by January 2027 and three segments by July 2027.
During the workshop, staff will outline the risks and tradeoffs for service and non-service reductions. Because rail has high fixed costs and low marginal savings, it is impossible to close the projected FY27 $376M deficit with service cuts and fare increases alone.
BART staff evaluated multiple aspects of service including routes, stations, headways, peak, evening, and weekend service and hours of operation. The proposed framework outlines, for the very first time, specific details including which stations would need to be closed due to a lack of operating funds and the recommended phased approach to triggering further cuts. The plan retains as many riders as possible, while still cutting service to realize savings. System support services would need to be reduced by 40% as cost savings from cutting service would be largely offset by the resulting lost fare revenue.
Source: BART
Phase 1 – North Concord, Orinda, Pittsburg Center Stations Would Close
The stations on the list for potential Phase 1 closure in January 2027 include the 10 lowest ridership stations: North Concord, Orinda, Pittsburg Center, Oakland International Airport, West Dublin/Pleasanton, Castro Valley, San Bruno, South Hayward, South San Francisco and Warm Springs/South Fremont.
In addition, the proposed Phase 1 proposal includes Service Frequencies of a 63% reduction in train hours; Reduced base schedule: 3-line base schedule each with 2 trains/hour and 240% more transfers (Percentage of trips requiring a transfer increases from 7% to 22%); Test retaining peak service: Peak Green/Red/Yellow trains operate in peak hours/direction only; and No evening service: the lines would Close at 9 PM (7 days) and Open at 8 AM (Saturday and Sunday).
Source: BART
Phase 2 – Yellow Line Service Would End at Concord Station, Pittsburg/Bay Point & Antioch Stations Would Close
The Phase 2 – July 2027: Segment Closure Scenario, Contingent on Phase 1 implementation, would result in a 70% reduction in train hours and 25% reduction in system miles; Segment closures would stop service on most system segments opened after 1976: Yellow line service would end at Concord, shuttering the Pittsburg/Bay Point and Antioch Stations; Orange line service would end at Bay Fair,; Blue line service would be discontinued shuttering the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station; Most stations south of Daly City would be closed except for direct service to SFO would continue for revenue retention; Service continues to Milpitas and Berryessa due to terms of BART/VTA agreements.
Board Vote at Feb. 26 Meeting
There will not be a Board vote at the workshop on February 12. After receiving feedback from Directors at the workshop, staff plans to return to the Board on Thursday, February 26, with a resolution to adopt a finalized alternative service framework that would be implemented if new funding is not secured.
You can participate in the workshop. You may join in person (2150 Webster Street, Oakland, CA 94612) or via Zoom videoconferencing (https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89025424156).
Written comments may be addressed to the BART Board in advance via email to Board.Meeting@BART.gov, using “public comment” as the subject line, before 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11th.
Hourly top step pay comparison among police agencies in Contra Costa County. Source: APOA
Include Dispatchers in public, social media campaign for new contract
“150 days out of contract and no relief in sight.” – APOA
APD Management also out of contract but working under previous one
So far, six Closed Session Conferences with Labor Negotiators held
Share Barbanica’s social media post regarding concerns about City spending more money on another homeless hotel
By Allen D. Payton
Ignoring the advice of City Manager Bessie Scott to Antioch Police Officers Association has continued their public campaign regarding the lack of a contract with the City since the end of August with an added complaint of the difference in pay with other local agencies. They’ve included Dispatchers’ pay in their list of complaints and with posts on their Facebook page and Instagram account as part of their campaign.
Antioch PD Among Lowest Top Step Hourly Pay in County
In a post on the organization’s Facebook page on Friday, Jan. 30, 2025, they show a chart of top step hourly pay for police officers for 17 agencies in Contra Costa County plus, BART Police. It shows Antioch PD has one of the lowest levels of pay. Their contract used to include a requirement that they be paid the second highest in the county, as Antioch is the second largest city by population. But now, 14 other police agencies offer a higher top step pay than Antioch which offers $67.56 per hour. Neighboring agencies pay more with Oakley PD at $69.93, Brentwood PD at $69.89 and Pittsburg at $69.69. San Ramon PD offers the highest top step pay in the county at $77.81 per hour.
APD Dispatchers are also out of contract. Source: APOA video screenshots
Antioch Dispatchers Also Affected
In a separate post on Saturday, January 31st, the APOA shared a video about Dispatchers’ pay and wrote, “The lack of a contract for the APOA is far more problematic than you may have thought. The pay gap extends to our members in dispatch as well! 150 days out of contract and no relief in sight.”
The video includes an audio narrative with subtitles which reads, “Every call for help in Antioch starts the same way. With a dispatcher answering the phone. But here’s the reality. Antioch police dispatchers are significantly underpaid compared to neighboring agencies.
“Dispatchers at the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office and Pittsburg Police earn nine thousand nine hundred dollars more per year than Antioch. Concord dispatchers make twenty-two thousand four hundred four dollars more. Pleasant Hill pays seventeen thousand eighty-eight dollars more. Richmond dispatchers earn twenty-six thousand six hundred seventy-six dollars more annually. Walnut Creek pays seventeen thousand nine hundred seventy-six dollars more. Brentwood pays twelve thousand five hundred sixty-four dollars more. And Martinez pays sixteen thousand forty-four dollars more than Antioch.
“These aren’t small differences. They’re life-changing pay gaps. And they come with real consequences. When experienced dispatchers can earn tens of thousands more by crossing city lines, recruitment suffers. Retention suffers.
“Antioch dispatchers are working understaffed and often work sixteen-hour shifts to cover the empty spots. That means fewer dispatchers, longer wait times, increased stress, and heavier workloads for those who stay.
“If Antioch wants to recruit and retain skilled dispatchers, pay must reflect the responsibility of the job. That means a meaningful contract with competitive salaries. Because when dispatchers leave, everyone in this city feels the impact.”
In addition, APOA has been posting more videos on their Facebook page and Instagram account as part of their campaign.
Antioch Police Management Also Out of Contract
Members of the Antioch Police Sworn Management Association were asked if they have a new contract with the City and if theirs also expired at the end of August. Captain Desmond Bittner responded, “It expired the same time as APOA’s. I had them (the City) add language saying the contract will continue until we worked out a new one.”
The former Comfort Inn now Antioch Inn & Suites will be used to house the homeless at $1.2 million per year. Photo courtesy of Mike Barbanica
Share Former Councilman Barbanica’s Post About City Expenditures for Homeless
The APOA also reposted comments by former Antioch Councilman Mike Barbanica about the City considering spending funds on another homeless hotel writing, “We want the public to see where their money is going!”
In a post on his “Community Member” Facebook page, Barbanica, a former Pittsburg Police Lieutenant, showed a photo of the now closed Comfort Inn, located on Mahogany Way at Highway 4 and Auto Center Drive and entered the discussion writing, “$1,200,000 potentially every year, local taxpayer funded…up to 15 years…
If other funding falls short, Antioch taxpayers are on the hook!
Transparency note: I didn’t author this from a single document. I reviewed staff reports, press reports, spoke with several people familiar with the proposal, and used AI to help compile a neutral, fact-based outline so the numbers could be seen clearly. The goal here is clarity, not advocacy.
Here’s the total City of Antioch financial commitment for the proposed Homekey+ housing project if it is approved and funded by the state:
1. One-time Local Match – The city would provide a one-time contribution of $750,000 toward acquisition and rehabilitation of the property when the Homekey+ award is received.
2. Annual Operating Subsidy – The City would commit up to $1.2 million per year to help operate the facility.
3. Duration of Operating Support – That annual subsidy is for five years, with two optional extensions of five years each (for a potential total of 15 years of subsidy) if the project continues to meet Homekey+ program guidelines.
4. Overall Total Estimate – Based on the staffing report and Council discussion, the total projected financial commitment over the long term is roughly $18 million–$19 million if you include the operating subsidies plus the one-time match (i.e., ~$1.2 M × 15 years = ~$18 M, plus the ~$750 K match).
Summary of Antioch’s Commitment if Homekey+ is Approved
Component Amount
One-time contribution (acquisition/rehabilitation) $750,000, Annual operating subsidy Up to $1.2 M per year
Duration of subsidy 5–15 years (with extensions), Approximate total over full life ~$18 M–$19 M
Important Notes
This commitment only takes effect if the state awards Homekey+ funding and the City moves forward with the project after award.
The operating subsidy requirements could be reduced if alternative funding sources or partners contribute support, but the report assumes the full amount will initially be covered by the City.
WHAT COULD THIS MEAN?
The $1.2 million per year is a CITY / local commitment, not state money.
Now the break down so there’s no ambiguity.
Who pays what in the Antioch Homekey+ project
State of California (Homekey / Homekey+)
Through California Department of Housing and Community Development:
Pays up-front capital costs: Property acquisition, Rehabilitation / conversion, This is a one-time grant, not ongoing funding,
The state does NOT commit to covering long-term operations.
City of Antioch (local funds)
From Antioch: One-time local match, $750,000 (city funds), Annual operating subsidy, Up to $1.2 million per year, Initially 5 years, With two optional 5-year extensions, Potential exposure: up to 15 years
This money comes from local sources: City General Fund, Measure funds / local housing allocations, Other city-controlled revenue (not guaranteed state funding), The staff reports are explicit that the City is responsible for covering operating shortfalls if other funding does not materialize.
What that means… The state helps buy and convert the building, The city commits to keeping it running, If other funding falls short, Antioch taxpayers are on the hook, That’s why council members and staff describe it as a long-term fiscal obligation, not just a grant.”
—————
Six Closed Session Conferences with Labor Negotiators to Discuss Contracts
To date, the City Council, City Manager Bess Scott and a representative from the City Attorney’s Office have held six Closed Session meetings entitled Conference with Labor Negotiators with representatives of the APOA and City employee groups to discuss their contracts. The first one was held August 12 followed by additional meetings on Aug. 26, Sept. 9, Oct. 14, 2025, and Jan. 13 and 27, 2026.
Questions for APOA, City Staff, CouncilGo Unanswered for Now
Questions were asked of APOA leadership, when did negotiations begin and who represented the organization.
Questions were also emailed on Saturday, January 31st, to City Manager Scott, Mayor Bernal, the four council members and the City Attorney’s Office staff. They were asked, “Why wait so long to begin negotiations when the contracts for at least the APOA and APD Management Association ended on August 31st? Is that usual practice? Why not start sooner? Why didn’t you have meetings before every regular meeting to get things worked out?”
They were also asked, “Besides the APOA and APD Management Association, have the contracts also expire for the other employee groups, including the Management Unit, Treatment Plant Employees’ Association, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 and Confidential Unit? If not, when do their contracts expire?”
Finally, the council and staff members were asked, “How long are the new contracts expected to last? One year, two, three or five years?”
The questions were resent to City staff and council members early Tuesday morning, Feb. 3, 2026. But no responses were received prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.
